But in a Free Market, if they continue to screw someone over or charge too high of prices, people will stop using their services and it’s an opportunity for another business to undercut them. They go out of business if they can’t offer the best product at the cheapest prices, because someone else will. Because "Profit Motive".
There are entire YELP-like industries designed around measuring how well companies
​

This entire Net Neutrality Debate is simplified in one question.

Do you trust "The Government" or "The Market" more?
This is the only question you need ask yourself.

Let's discuss all these atrocities they are saying 'could occur'.... Why haven't we seen them from 1994-2014, twenty years with NO NET NEUTRALITY at all, and none of these horrors occurred.
​
Sure some companies had some fights and guess what they all solved it and moved on. It never affected you for a moment, you didn't even know it happened until the TV or the great Facebook told you about it.

The internet is the most awesome tech ever created, why?

More than two decades to evolve free of regulation, that is why.
Some are too young, you don't remember how regulation has always been the problem and never once been the solution. When phones were highly regulated, great screams poured out when deregulation was proposed. They said it would be 'suicide for our communication networks and capabilities'.
​
"The corporations will charge you for every feature", "Long distance will triple!", "They will shut your phone off if you say something they don't like!", "they will tap your phone", on and on it went....any of this sound familiar?
​

Jack Spirko reminds us what telephone service was like before DEREGULATION?

I’m talking about back in the good old days when it was highly regulated?
Here are some facts about that time...
​

You could not own a phone you had to rent it!

You could not unplug a phone and move it, they said you could damage the system or kill yourself because you were untrained (YES REALLY, similar to why ‘trained attendants' have to pump my gas for me when I drive through New Jersey). They would plug your phone in and staple the jack in. If you wanted to move your phone you had to pay to have a tech come move it to a new jack.

If you wanted a second phone in your house again you had to pay a phone tech to come install it. Over $100 (in 1980 dollars) to plug in a phone! Yes, seriously!

Long distance was over 1 dollar a minute; “in-state long distance” was higher.

But “oh please, please almighty government that has screwed up EVERYTHING else it has ever touched, come regulate the internet just a little bit.”
​

The sheep are so easily led by a terms "net neutrality" and “free and open internet”, it all sounds so nice right?

It actually amounts to one thing "government regulation of the internet", every time you hear or read the term “net neutrality”, translate it in your head to read"government regulation of the internet" and see how much support you have for it in a week or two. Go check out these and other chunks of wisdom at The Survival Podcast.
​

But what about GEOGRAPHICALLY disparate communities with only one provider?!

First research this: Why aren't there competing ISPs where you live? Does your local ISP have a monopoly that was granted to them from government regulation? Or does the cost of internet infrastructure truly outweigh the population in an area?
If there is no incentive to bring a second company into such a small population, chock that up to your 'cost of living in the boonies."

​The argument that "Cheap Abundant Internet is a Right because everything we do is online" will be withheld for another time (it's not).

There are never really any true monopolies, even Standard Oil would see competitors the moment they increased prices.

The ‘out in the boonies’ problem you have can probably only be fixed with a US Postal Service-style monopoly. But then you’d be getting USPS Government quality Internet.

The problem we have in this case (geographically, only one provider) is the kind of problem that the market corrects for, over time, though. It spurs the next innovation that will reduce the cost of DSL/Satellite solutions which will free us of the old physical fiber lines.

Just think, the 'telephone poles' we are so accustomed to seeing in our neighborhoods are 99% obsolete for telephone connectivity these days. Who has telephones in their house anymore?

Let the market innovate out of your problem. Yes, I know that means it sucks in the meantime.
​

Final Thoughts

If the internet would be SO AWFUL without net neutrality why was it awesome from 1994-2014 when we had nothing even approaching "net neutrality" for those 20 years?

If it’s meant to help ‘the little guy’ compete with large media, then why is large media lobbying to get it passed?

Could it possibly be that large media LOVES legislation that they can lobby for that helps them and hurts others?

Could it be that large media firms can afford the teams of lawyers needed to comply with large regulation, knowing that the startup “little guy” can’t?
Most people who hate big business these days don’t even understand that these big businesses have politicians in their pockets in order to protect their market share and protect them from the ‘little guy’ who can innovate to make things better and cheaper for us.

Just think, if government started regulating the net in 1994, you'd still hear modem noises followed by "YOU'VE GOT MAIL" every time you logged on 23 years later!
​
Thanks Free Market!
​

Don't Fall for the Following Scare Tactics in Hopes Government can get Involved

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

Screw with healthcare, states begin to set up their own systems to best fit their individual populations, or not, as is best locally.

Defund Meals on Wheels and merely threaten Planned Parenthood and PBS and watch private charities pick up the slack.

Pull out of global climate deal, individual cities make moves to align with their residents wishes on the matter.

Trump has actually made Democrats support 'states rights' and think about owning guns and push for the succession of California.

Apologies if I failed to preface this up front but by no means am I a fan of the current White House, and it's sure as hell not intentional on their part, but damn if there isn't some (present day) proof of concept going on here.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

Dear Mr Republican's Prediction: The women's rights protests will not succeed, at least not in the way that many of the protesters conceive of success.

This isn't a malicious statement; rather, it's an objective one that I believe is grounded in cold, hard reality. In my view, protests need to have several qualities in order to be successful:

(1) They need to be large.

(2) They need to be sustained over a long period of time.

(3) They need broad buy-in across geographic AND demographic groups.

(4) They need to coalesce around a clear leader--or small group of leaders--who can speak for their masses, especially with policymakers.

(5) They need to revolve around a problem whose nature is clear.

(6) They need to advocate for very clear policy solutions. This means literally laying out precisely which legal steps should be taken in order to remedy the problem(s), not just holding signs saying that this, that, or the other thing "is bad."

(7) They need to ensure that their method of protest doesn't push away some of the very groups that they need to win over. The leader mentioned in number 4 needs to be able to set the tone and style of protest for nearly everyone.

"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
​FIND OUT MORE HERE

Unfortunately for these protesters, their nascent movement meets the first criterion but none of the rest of the criteria. (This has been the case for, as best as I can recall, ALL modern protest "movements.") Let's take them one at a time.

[1] This is the one criterion that the protests met: they were very large by almost any measure.

[2] So far, these protests just are not a long-term going concern. Perhaps that will change; some of the organizers are pushing to keep this movement from losing momentum. We shall see. Time will tell.

[3] Though the protests seemed to have broad geographic appeal (though more nearly-exclusively urban than some successful past movements), they didn't appear to have broad demographic appeal. From what I can tell, the composition of the protests was overwhelmingly female, disproportionately white, and almost exclusively more than just a little liberal. The support they have among those who didn't actually protest also seems to be largely female, white, and liberal. (Compare this to the civil rights movement, which, though frequently largely black on the actual streets, nevertheless drew substantial support across large swaths of the white community--as an example.) Furthermore, despite the largely female nature of the protests, I've actually been surprised at how divided females actually are: I cannot count the number I've seen, heard, and read criticizing the marches.

[4] There simply are no leaders of this movement. There are a lot of "speakers" and mouthpieces, but, much to the surprise of some of our "leaders," leadership involves more than a love for microphones. When I think of leaders who can corral a protest movement, I think of people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[5] The murkiness of the issues at the heart of this protest is probably among the gravest of the obstacles. Honestly, I'm having a very hard time ascertaining any truly "women's" issues that unite all of the protesters. It appears that if you ask 12 of them why they're protesting, you'll get 13 different answers, many of which don't appear to be unique to women. As far as I can tell, there are only two themes that unite the vast majority of the protesters: anti-Trump and pro-abortion. This is dangerous for a protest movement because one can logically ask whether this is a women's rights protest or an anti-Trump protest, a women's rights protest or a pro-abortion protest. Donald Trump isn't going anywhere for the time being and, in any event, has offended far more people than just women. He also doesn't seem to care about protests. Abortion is certainly partially a women's health issue, yes, but the later the pregnancy becomes, the more people--including many women--see it as not ONLY a women's health issue. For most Americans, it grows into an issue that is more than simply women's health. Many people, especially in later stages of pregnancy, see opposition to abortion not as taking away a woman's right but as providing a right to a baby. Scientifically, this position cannot be refuted. So on both themes, the practical relevance seems to me to be dubious.

[6] As far as I can tell, the protesters have offered no policy solutions at all. They've let us know what they like and what they don't like. They've let us know their perceptions. What should be done about it though? This is what protesters must clearly answer, and it hasn't happened.

[7] Protests leaders must be able to set the tone more effectively than they have to date. Peaceful, civil protests are one thing. Blocking interstates during rush hour, however, probably pushes more people away from your cause (especially those then stuck in even worse traffic) than it draws. Damaging a person's property wins the sympathy of but a few. Protesting against men per se is a sure way to cause most men to lose interest. Exposing the parts of her body that the protester claims to be trying to protect seems more suited to late night talk show fodder. Overtly offensive and/or vulgar signs have precisely the opposite of the "unity" impact that is so badly needed. Vilifying as sexist those who simply do not share one's perspective--even if the disagreement is grounded in objective facts--leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. I could go on and on, but I've made my point. To be sure, I am NOT accusing all, or even most, of the protesters of doing these things. Only a small number did. Even so, those are the small number that dominate headlines, which is precisely why the protests' leadership must be able to set the tone of the movement.

Yes, I am aware that enormous movements that don't meet all of these criteria have brought about change, but it's usually not the change that many of the protesters wanted. The "Arab Spring" is an excellent example of this. Those protests were huge, but that's all that they were. As a result, they ended up with change, though not the change many had envisioned. Saudis simply were given a bit more welfare. Bahrainis came under far more repression by security services. Egypt is now ruled by a de facto military dictatorship, while Libya now has no government at all. Syria descended into a civil war that rages still today and whose fighting has killed or displaced millions of people. This, if anything, is what happens when a movement involves only large numbers and nothing more.

For now, we need to focus on unity. What it all boils down to is that we need to worry about one demographic above all others: Americans. The constant focus on one demographic group or another--especially during times of heightened tension, discontent, and uncertainty--serves only to drive more wedges. Right now, we need to focus on our country. That's the number one priority, and that's one category that includes us all. Speak in terms of what you feel is good or bad for the United States.

MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:

Are you a member of Liberty.me? Why not? It's marketed as The Global Liberty Community!

​They have tons of articles, podcasts, discussion boards, a marketcenter, and, maybe best of all, an awesome library of liberty-minded resources.

​One such resource is a free 19-page e-book titled "Reclaim your privacy: 5 Things you can do right now" written by by Bill Rounds, Esq. & Trace Mayer, JD. It's a pretty solid read.
​
​From the introduction "In this guide, we present information that, no matter where you are on your journey toward privacy—unless you’re Jason Bourne—you will find useful and actionable. These five areas are not the only categories that require diligence, but they are areas in which a lack of privacy is pervasive and must be addressed in order to maintain privacy and security."

Check out more from LibertyLOL:

​We wrote earlier this week concerning the banning/throttling of conservative ideas on Facebook, specifically the Being Libertarian page. We noted that as a private company, FB owns it's own servers and can ban speech it doesn't politically agree with. We concluded that as free-market believers, while no law has been broken, we should seek to expose this as much as possible so others are knowledgeable and can boycott or stop using the product if necessary.

​The context:The contretemps has been brewing all week, as Milo engaged in a barbed to and fro with embattled Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones over her Twitter feud with trolls who hated her new movie. At one point the CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey intervened himself, asking Jones to direct message him. Milo himself said nothing racist, though he joked that Jones’ grammatically challenged quips at him were “barely literate”, said America needs better schools and referred to Jones facetiously as “a black dude”.Milo has been suspended from Twitter before and also lost his verification tag. Will tonight’s suspension really be permanent?Earlier today Milo said he was not sorry for his dialogue with Jones.“No, of course, I don’t have any regrets,” Milo told Heat Street. “But feminists on the other hand should have regrets that they have taught strong women that they are victims and attacked people for having different opinions to them on Twitter.”
​
We'll see how this ends, however, it should be noted that Ms. Jones isn't exactly the perfect angel on Twitter.

For years, one of the main grievances among Twitter users has been the ability of anonymous trolls to send abusive comments to other people on the service.
But on Tuesday, Twitter barred one of the most egregious and consistent offenders of its terms of service, Milo Yiannopoulos, in an attempt to show that it is cracking down on abuse.

​The NYT emotionally tear-jerking story ends with some contrived sympathy towards Ms. Jones and sets her up as a victim:
​
​On Monday evening, Ms. Jones quit using Twitter with a final message of exasperation after days of near-nonstop abuse. “I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very sad heart,” Ms. Jones tweeted. “All this cause I did a movie.” On Monday evening, Ms. Jones quit using Twitter with a final message of exasperation after days of near-nonstop abuse. “I leave Twitter tonight with tears and a very
sad heart,” Ms. Jones tweeted. “All this cause I did a movie.”

We're still waiting for our ban. It's really our only goal at this point.​

Please share this story to help our friends at Being Libertarian get their page back. They’ve worked arduously to build a loyal following of more than 90,000 fans who enjoy their daily content, and would appreciate if you could give them a helping hand.

​Liberty Hangout reports that Facebook has shut down "Being Libertarian" a FB page with over 90,000 followers due to the following post:

Liberty Hangout reports:

​"Being Libertarian has reached out to Facebook in hopes of receiving a media inquiry about the deletion of their page. After Facebook was recently caught tailoring their news towards liberal sources, it was believed that their relationship with non-liberals would improve. But this week’s turn of events indicate that things aren’t getting any better. We know that conservatives are being censored by Facebook, but the censorship of libertarians is even worse."

​One thing that separates us from the Neanderthals is that we follow principles. The principle of Free Markey Economics tells us that while banning BEING LIBERTARIAN is quite outrageous, FB is the private property of Mark Zuckerberg and he can do with it what he wishes. A key theme of free market capitalism is that we have the ability to not use a product or support a company that acts in a way we don't agree with. Unfortunately, with FB, we're not rushing to reactivate our Myspace pages any time soon.

​I'd recommend sharing this article, sharing other articles that are reporting the same, and getting the word out as much as possible. It's important as we lead up to prime election season that , at the minimum, the politically illiterate are at least tapped into the fact that FB might not always be the most 'fair and balanced' place to start their research. Also, neither is Fox News...